This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
IMO it is not that clear because the commissioner stating "an attempt to AVOID a longstanding rule" rather than saying he violated or broke the rule.I think that BB got off pretty cheap.He obviously violated a specific rule - that is crazy talk to think he did not. There is no "loophole" or he'd have been exonerated.
They don't teach English where you're from I guess. The statement is not ambiguous. Belichek broke the rules, but did so in a way he felt was not covered by the rule, hence attempted to avoid. Either way, whatever you want to call it - it's cheating.IMO it is not that clear because the commissioner stating "an attempt to AVOID a longstanding rule" rather than saying he violated or broke the rule.I think that BB got off pretty cheap.He obviously violated a specific rule - that is crazy talk to think he did not. There is no "loophole" or he'd have been exonerated.
I understand English very well. These statements are worded very specifically and revised and revised again. The commish specifically mentioned that BB tried to avoid the rule.Also, when I stated that I did not feel is was clear, I was referring to the loophole/specific rule, not whether or not it was cheating. I think BB pushed the envelope way to far and was trying to exploit and circumvent the rule or at a minimum the spirit of the rule.I believe that BB got off easy and wasn't punished enough.They don't teach English where you're from I guess. The statement is not ambiguous. Belichek broke the rules, but did so in a way he felt was not covered by the rule, hence attempted to avoid. Either way, whatever you want to call it - it's cheating.IMO it is not that clear because the commissioner stating "an attempt to AVOID a longstanding rule" rather than saying he violated or broke the rule.I think that BB got off pretty cheap.He obviously violated a specific rule - that is crazy talk to think he did not. There is no "loophole" or he'd have been exonerated.Whether he intended to cheat is between BB and his god.
On that we agree.I understand English very well. These statements are worded very specifically and revised and revised again. The commish specifically mentioned that BB tried to avoid the rule.Also, when I stated that I did not feel is was clear, I was referring to the loophole/specific rule, not whether or not it was cheating. I think BB pushed the envelope way to far and was trying to exploit and circumvent the rule or at a minimum the spirit of the rule.They don't teach English where you're from I guess. The statement is not ambiguous. Belichek broke the rules, but did so in a way he felt was not covered by the rule, hence attempted to avoid. Either way, whatever you want to call it - it's cheating.IMO it is not that clear because the commissioner stating "an attempt to AVOID a longstanding rule" rather than saying he violated or broke the rule.I think that BB got off pretty cheap.He obviously violated a specific rule - that is crazy talk to think he did not. There is no "loophole" or he'd have been exonerated.
Whether he intended to cheat is between BB and his god.
I believe that BB got off easy and wasn't punished enough.
I was referring to the commish's statement, and whether or not the wording made people believe there was a loophole that BB attempted to be exploited or not.
No. If there was a loophole, I don't think he would have been fined.I read the statement as saying that Belichick tried to avoid the rule -- as in, he didn't comply with the rule -- as in, he violated the rule.
tuck rule
This is a football site. Who the hell cares about the NBA? I agree though. Belichick should get the same punishment as that ref.
I wasn't referring to this site in a vacuum, I was referring to all media. Think about it: Mike Vick was one guy who did something off the field that had nothing to do with the game and he got much more press than the NBA ref who was fixing games, determining outcomes, and essentially destroyed any validity the league had....however, it barely received any attention. Could you imagine if an NFL ref was caught fixing games?
Be excellent to one another.
That's not the entire rule.The rule was posted last night from multiple people that also says "for use in the current game" or something along those lines. I assume Bill tried to argue that wasn't the case.
My guess is he tried to slip through the vagueries of "might aid a team during the playing of a game" and claim that his videotaping was only for future use. However, he's a freaking moron for pretty much ignoring the clarification of the rule that came down from the NFL this offseason which left ZERO gray area. If Belichick needed further clarification, he should have called the league and asked. In his own arrogrance, BB figured that he could hide behind that one clause in the rule and was clearly wrong.
Obviously a bad argument on BB parts. Because the wording of the says "aid a team during the playing of A game" not "during the playing of that game." So using the videotaping for a future game would still fall in the scope of the rule. But then BB would never be able to explain why the same cameraman would be taping GB since they don't play GB twice a year, or even every year.
Two things: 1) There's such conspiracy theories around the NBA anyway, it wasn't really a big shock to most sports fans. The refs have shown favoritism, there's been
about the league for decades, there's been game fixing with players (more at the college level) for decades. This just pointed out that the mob was in on the action too. Meh.2) Nobody gives two ####s about the NBA anyway.
Unless they did it all the time to keep a dossier on every team. Weak argument, I know but it's possible. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter one bit. Belichick broke the rule and got punished. Everything else is just noise after the fact IMO.
Right. I guess I can understand that. If GB made it to the Superbowl, then they would have advanced scouting on them.
But don't misunderstand me: I think that Belichick was absolutely using the recorded info during the game. I just think he was trying to create a loophole (where one didn't really exist) to "hide" his cheating.
It's really not that difficult to see. How many times was he warned. I guess he thought he was above the rules.Nonsense. There are lots of legal ways that the Patriots could have gotten their defensive signals besides videotapes.In case you've missed all the other threads, virtually everyone agrees: stealing signals is not against the rules. Using videotape to steal signals is. Plenty of individuals have admitted to stealing signals, but this was different because of the rule against videotaping.
Levin, is that Trey in his Crown Point or wherever it was in upstate-Hudson-Valley-NY mugshot you got there in your Avatar? To confirm your answer is genuine...if so, tell me Trey's last name.Seems a trivial posting, I know; just I'm always glad to see crossover, let's call it eclectic, taste it would represent. Plus, as a Vermonter living in Cork (Ireland), I get sentimental for VT references.He obviously violated a specific rule - that is crazy talk to think he did not. There is no "loophole" or he'd have been exonerated.Whether he intended to cheat is between BB and his god.
He ####### cheated, and now it's casts a HUGE shadow on the Pats and raises a question mark to their SB wins.
I agree completely, but that's also part of the point. What the Patriots did was no big deal, but its being treated as one because its the NFL. This stuff happens in NASCAR all the time, sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. Life goes on. Every team in the NFL has skeletons in the closet regarding 'roids, teaching their players to leg whip, hold, use stick'um, steal signals, fake injury to get a time out, whatever. It's a cat and mouse game that has been going on for decades, I'm just lmao at the "outrage" regarding this scenario..
That doesn't work. The "including without limitation" part means that videotape machines, telephone tapping, and other forms of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game are merely (nonexclusive) examples of things that are prohibited. Arguing that a videotape machine isn't prohibited because it doesn't help the team during the playing of a game is no better than arguing that a videotape machine isn't prohibited because it isn't used to tap a telephone.To be prohibited, an item doesn't have to fit into every category of the nonexclusive examples; in fact, it doesn't have to fit into any of them. In this case, however, it is quite clear that the videotape machine does fit into the "videotape machine" category -- so whether it fits into the "telephone tapping" or ". . . aid a team during the playing of a game" categories as well is irrelevant.
I don't know who it is, but he's quite an anistasiohole.Folks, this is actually law school 101. How to read a statute. The part delineating "for use in a game" follows the part that says use of recording equipment is prohibited - it clarifies the rule with the "including without limitation" - which is shorthand for "including, but not limited to," language in a statute. IOW, remove everything after the word "including" and you have the rule - it is not subject to any loophople, technicality, or interpretation when you do that.Not even a great lawyer could have succesfully mangled that rule to create BB's interpretation.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Pretty cut and dry that it's cheating.
